Daily Chat: When to intervene, if ever?

SAN ANGELO, Texas - At some point in a news photojournalist's life, a reckoning of the conscience must be acknowledged and dealt with to do the job effectively. When do you intervene, if ever?

A recent story in the Guardian tells of photographers that have had to face this question. For some, it is clear-cut: no intervention ever. The moment you do, you have now created the news, became a part of the story. As a journalist, that is a major breech on many fronts.

For others that have been faced with the situation and intervened, it was the loss of their humanity if they didn't intervene that drove their actions. The story gives several examples of what people did and their reasoning and consequences of following that path.

There are other examples of this dilemma: a lifeguard does not attempt a dangerous rescue unless his personal safety is assured. Otherwise there will be two causalities instead of one. But standing there, helpless as you watch a person lose their life is not much a better option for many.

On a less consequential level, on any particular day I might not exhibit my usual cherub-like demeanor. I'm not mad at any one or any thing, I might just have something on my mind, or just be a little tired or whatever. But I'm not mad. Invariably, someone will insist on finding out what I'm mad about. Well, I wasn't mad, but I'm getting there fast with your "intervention." In this case, intervention did not have the outcome hoped for.

On to the discussion: under what circumstances do you intervene or not? Ever been the subject of an intervention? Ever watched something happen and later wish you had done something? Ever keep yourself from intervening for reason?

When do you let a sleeping dog lie, and when do you poke him with a stick?